ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS
This is an important resource. You are welcome to refer it as often as needed. Browse the website and post your initial comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Click here.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS
This is an important resource. You are welcome to refer it as often as needed. Browse the website and post your initial comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Click here.
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
18 Comments:
The BBC website proved to be a valuable source for a quick synopsis of the history behind the Arab-Israeli conflict. The area in which I would like to discuss is the pre-1947 era in which the territory that is now known as Israel was under British control. I find it interesting how throughout history powerful nations have found it suitable to carve territories and found states with boundaries that make little logical sense. Although the UN plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states with Jerusalem as an international city may have seemed like a good idea at the time and under the circumstances (having just ended the Holocaust); the fact that the plan was rejected by the native Arabs should have clued the UN as to what would follow and simultaneously suggested a more tactful approach.
Branching off from this I would also like to comment on how many people often cite the Arab-Israeli conflict as the most complex and involved international conflict in the world. Although this may be true, I would argue that it is certainly not alone in its origins and subsequent conflict. Just take the majority of the African continent for an example. After the fall of colonialism the continent of Africa was left with states whose boundaries paid scant attention to the demography of the regions. This often resulted in two or more populations whom could not coexist peacefully being trapped within the state boundaries. I argue that the only reason the Arab-Israeli conflict has not been an exact duplication of the wars and genocide in Africa is because each side has been able to gain the support of international players. This is most notable in the support that Israel has received from the U.S. since its formation. Some might even argue that through the use of powerful lobbying groups in the US Israel has been able to gain some control over the US policy formation.
On a final note I would like to bring up the idea that perhaps a similar situation is enfolding in Iraq. With current constitution of Iraq seemingly leaving the Shiite and Kurdish populations in a much better position than the Sunni population, it seems likely that an analogous conflict could break out in Iraq.
My first thought after looking at the maps was how can so much blood be shed over so little land? Israel is often compared to New Jersey in size, yet this tiny parcel of land appears nearly every day in the news, whether it be a missile from the Israeli military slamming into an apartment building, or a Palestinian suicide bomber detonating himself in an outdoor cafe. It seems senseless to spend year after year battling one another when all the energy, time, and money could be used in a much more positive and productive manner.
The maps were very helpful in understanding the cycle of violence, but they also left me with some questions. What were the demographics of Palestine before the 1948 war? Were there Jews and Arabs living together in harmony? Would the immigration of Jews into Palestine have been so inflammatory if the Jewish state of Israel had not been established, instead allowing both groups of people free movement throughout Palestine? Is there any cultural difference between Palestinians and Jordanians or Syrians (or the rest of the Arabs)?
It is easy to see why the Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, are so angry. A group of people from outside took over one of the most important religious sites for Islam, then defeated the Arab armies in further conflicts, gaining more of 'Arab land', and furthermore restricted the movements of the people in the West Bank. In the West Bank, the majority of people are Palestinian yet they are ruled by the Israeli minority. Furthermore, the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip refugee camps is another humiliating situation. It is no wonder that so many young men are recruited into violent and often terroristic actions.
In return, the Israelis must deal with numerous resistance groups who are very clandestine, effective, difficult to eliminate, and have little qualm with killing any Israelis. Thus the cycle of violence continues, with retaliation attacks that aim to dishearten and scare the enemy into never attacking again. I believe that this deterence strategy is not effective when some of those you are fighting believe that death through martyrdom is the ultimate goal of life.
The peace with Egypt in 1979 looks to be a promising example of what should be done in the future. If a Palestinian state could be established in the West Bank, at pre 1967 borders, then perhaps both sides could move forward with economic and cultural development, instead of moving backwards by taking lives and fostering hatred.
The time line does a very nice job of explaining the conflict dating back from British control to present times. However, knowing more about the history of the land pre-British rule is key in understanding the battle over claims to Israel. Arabs and Jews alike, as well as Romans and many other cultures throughout time have occupied what is now Israel. It is easy to think that Israelis occupy a land that is not theirs without looking into the long history of empires that have ruled the region.
I find it particularly interesting though that from the get-go when the British Mandate declared the land of Palestine to be shared by Arabs and Jews, the native Arabs turned this solution down. It's hard not to wonder- if they had accepted this plan that seemeed to make sense at the time, could there have been peace? This is the two state solution that international leaders around the world still seek to create but are continuously turned down.
In the past few decades, Israeli leaders have subsequently carved up plans to partition an Arab state alongside a Jewish state, and leaders such as Arafat have consistently turned these offers down. It seems the only answer to them is a one state solution with Israel out of the picture.
The peaceful relationship between Egypt and Israel could be a model for the Palestinian state. Land for peace worked between Egypt and Israel because when Israel withdrew from Sinai, Egypt vowed to recognize Israeli borders and ensure Israeli security. When Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip, a land for peace deal was what everyone had hoped for. Because there was no cooperating party on the Palestinian side, peace was not what ensued and instead rockets over Gaza's border into Israel continued with greater intensity. Unlike the leaders of Egypt who recognize Israel's existence, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
The Palestinian Authority was given the green light to turn around the lives of the unfortunately high amount of refugees living in Gaza, thus improving the lives of millions of Palestinians. Why so many refugees still remain in these horrible camps is a mystery.
Before Hamas captured Gilad Shalit, there had been talks of Prime Minister Olmert embarking on a major withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank.
After the attack, those plans were rightfully forgotten. The question here should not be why Israel can not give up land for peace with the Palestinians. Rather we should be asking why the Palestinians refuse to accept land for peace.
Both Yardena and Stephan Wirth have commented on and queried as to why peace can not be found in Israel and about the insensibility of the conflict that has been raging for so many years. Yardena asked why the Palestinians will not accept land for peace which is a question that I have also asked. My boss at one of my summer jobs recently moved to the United States from Israel and I asked him if he ever thought there could be a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He bluntly responded with a “No” and when I asked why he said it was because “They hate us”. So as for the question as to why peace can not be found in Israel and why the Palestinians will not accept land for peace, I put forth that the intense an insensible hatred of the Palestinians towards the very idea of a Jewish state in Israel overcomes the force of logical conflict resolution. I would also suggest that perhaps the Jews in Israel have come to accept the fact that they are hated by “all” Palestinians and that there is nothing they can do to change such malevolent feelings. Such passivity will certainly not help in the pursuit for peace. Both sides need to find a way to put thousands of years of history behind them and start fresh if peace is ever to be found. I believe that this is why peace has been so hard to come by in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I'm by far no expert on this topic, but I'm hoping to be more educated by the end of the Fall.
It seems like an inevitable truth that most nations will face internal and external conflicts before finding a peaceful harmony for themselves. For example, the United States had its Civil War almost a hundred years after separating from Britain. Most modern European states along with Russia, Korea, Chinese, and etc. faced terrible wars and struggles internally and externally before becoming what they are today. In Europe there were the terrible religious wars between Protestants and Catholics. Now, we have Arabs, Israelis, and the rest of the world.
The reason I bring this up is because many people may foolishly look at the conflicts around the world and say how uncivilized the people are. "Why can't they just do things peacefully?" Yet, the US has gone to war with Canada, Mexico, Europe, Japan, and itself in its own short less than 300 year history. Whereas many African nations and the Middle East have existed less than a century now as a political united state. It seems almost obvious that nations with a heterogeneous group would lead to conflict. The question now is how to peacefully resolve these problems, if it’s indeed possible.
I find it extremely confusing and difficult to find root causes or good solutions to this problem. There're cultural, religious, political, economical, and international concerns here. I'm very interested if Israel, Arabs, and/or Palestine would be satisfied even if the UN plan to have two nations with Jerusalem shared was implemented somehow? Or would the mutual hatred/mistrust and cultural/religious differences still prevent any chance of peace? There’re international players who would probably like to see one side completely win or keep this current state of chaos in the area. Are there any people who actually care about what’s best for everyone instead of serving their own interests whether it’s for their wealth, their family, their nation, or otherwise?
Also to comment on Jacob’s response, he points up a good point that many people in the area mutually hate each other which makes it impossible for peace to happen. I don’t believe every Arab or every Israeli hates each other though. The biggest events in history were always started by a small passionate minority. Another issue is that this brings up a sort of chicken and the egg dilemma. On one hand, you can say both sides have to stop hating each other and have open dialogue. On the other hand, they’re killing each other and abusing each other’s rights. Most people would get angry or fearful if this kind of violence kept happening. It seems to be a vicious cycle where the only solution will be when everyone realizes that mutual destruction is too costly and not worth the effort. In addition, the international countries must try to not instigate conflicts as well.
When looking at the maps it's interesting to see how many times land has changed hands. Throughout history this land has been conquered and reconquered, and history is repeating itself in the 20th and 21st centuries. Looking at the BBC maps, one could compare the country of Israel to an ocean, with its tide continuously ebbing and flooding.
In 1967 in the Six-Day war, Israel flooded and took the Sinai Peninsula as well as Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Then, through years of negotiations, Israel ebbed back and returned Sinai to Egypt in 1979 and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in 2005.
And then this past August, Israel flooded again, sending troops into Gaza to try to rescue one Israeli soldier and then into Lebanon to rescue two Israeli soldiers while in that time capturing a large amount of land in southern Lebanon(though Israel has said that it will return the land in southern Lebanon once the UN troops move in).
One can imagine that given the history of the area, the borders of Israel and its neighbors will continue to swell and shrink in the near future.
Yardena, the abortive land accords in the past cannot be blamed solely on the Palestinians. Firstly, it seems rather unrealistic to expect a population to be elated that its land will be partitioned and given to a foreign people…I am alluding to the 1948 British Mandate. Secondly, previous accords have been entirely insufficient and, if accepted, would have precluded the governance of an entirely autonomous Palestinian state. Rather it would have resulted in a pseudo state at the mercy of the IDF, which lacks any semblance of equity. There has yet to be a deal that grants the Palestinians a contiguous state, devoid of Israeli settlements and military presence. It seems unrealistic to expect a people to accept a deal that makes it rather implausible to have a viable standing army to protect its citizenry from foreign aggression as the land would be populated with various bastions of its oppressors. The Palestinians do not hate the Israelis. It just seems rational to expect a degraded and subjugated people to harbor ill will towards the government that has brutalized it for the past 60 years. Israel has continually oppressed the Palestinian people via military executions of civilians, assassination and imprisonment of Palestinian politicians, relegating a multitude of Arabs into Israeli prisons with baseless or no charge, destruction of the Palestinian infrastructures (Hospitals, roads, offices, schools and the list goes on i.e. even Arafat’s old office), the gleeful implementation of an apartheid, the complete capture of the Palestinian economic market and etc. Palestinians cannot competitively trade with other nations as Israeli has employed draconically exorbitant tariffs; thus, over 60% of the Palestinian population is unemployed. The Palestinian market has continually been depressed particularly from tariffs, military assaults and the fact that Israel prevented the formation of a Palestinian banking system until 1993. Our and Israel’s attitude towards Hamas is unfair. Both we and Israel encourage democratic reform in the Occupied Territories, yet when Hamas won a democratically election it was derided as illegitimate. So essentially what is being told to the Palestinians is to pick a leadership that is handed over by the US and Israel. I apologize for any evident incoherence, it is rather late.
Interesting comment, but let me throw a pebble into the pond: Yardena this is in connection to your comment about Why the Arabs did not accept partition in the beginning. Here is a counterfactual, there are nearly 400,000 Arabs in Michigan, if some major power uses its influence at the U.S. and the U.N. and proposes a division of Michigan into two states, one part to the U.S. and the other a new and independent Arab state. What would you say?
I completely understand the reference you make Professor Kahn, but again I don't think one can compare the two.
The United States has been a recognized sovereign state for over 200 years, thus Michigan's Arab population is a recognized group of citizens with inherent rights. Before 1948, the population of Palestine - Arabs and Jews alike- were not recognized citizens of a soverign nation. Palestine was simply a British Mandate, which the United Nations took upon its hands to divide in a way they saw fit and justifiable. Obviously this wasn't a course that went smoothly, and what the UN thought was fair and just was not considered so by many others.
This post has been removed by the author.
I find it particularly interesting when someone brings up the notion that it is the birthright of the Jews to have Israel as their country. It belonged to them historically and that is where they are supposed to live. If we take the same argument and apply it to United States, I bit we will upset some people. If historically Israel belongs to Jews and the British were right by giving them the land, then should we not give US back to the native Indians? Didn't US historically belong to the Indians, and don't they have the right to claim this land?
Also replying to some of Yardena's comments. Yardena said that "I find it particularly interesting though that from the get-go when the British Mandate declared the land of Palestine to be shared by Arabs and Jews, the native Arabs turned this solution down. It's hard not to wonder- if they had accepted this plan that seemeed to make sense at the time, could there have been peace? This is the two state solution that international leaders around the world still seek to create but are continuously turned down." Yardena, would you let someone come and claim more than 60% of your home as his? I assume the answer would be no. Then why is it that people see the partition of someone's land as legitimate and humane. What gives these so called "International Leaders" all compromised of Westerners to decide who lives and who leave a place when it doesn't even belong to them. Why would you agree to a "carving out" of part of your home and letting some stranger to murder your kids and deprive you and your family of any economic and social progression.
Anyhow, in terms of current situation in the MIddle East, one of Mahatma Gandhi's sayings fits it well. He said that "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind". This is truely the current situation in that region of the world. There are innocent civilians being killed both ways. The so called "retaliations" from both sides are killing innocent civilians left and right, and this only furthers intensifies the situation leading to further chaos and fitna in the region, which if not dealt with immediately will afflict others as well.
In response to Mustafa, I think you misinterpreted my comments before because I never once mentioned the notion of Jews' birthright to Israel.
Just a thought though, say you were to flip around the hypothetical situation you posed in which a Native American came and demanded that land be returned to him because his ancestors had lived on this land years ago. The same could be applied not only to the Jews who came to Israel as a safe haven with the notion that their ancestors had once cultivated that land, but for the Palestinians of today as well who demand the right to return to the land in which their predecessors had lived. This isn't to say either party is justified in making such demands, but the point is that you can apply this example to both the Jews and the Palestinians.
After looking at these maps and realizing just how much this land has been divided then put together over and over again, it baffles me how these people are still fighting over it. This is the first class I am taking on the subject and the more and more I am learning seems crazy of how countries and organizations have tried to resolve these conflicts. I don't see how even the UN in 1947 thought that this area could work divided into segments where the different Arab and Jewish states weren't even connected to one another. Like Dr. Khan said today about how a land bridge or tunnel could be made in hypothetical situations to connect areas would be ludacris. It's almost insulting that an international organization like the UN would ever even think that divisions of that such could ever work and that Arabs and Jews would be able to cross back and forth between their parcels of land safely would even be possible. With all of the conflict existing between these two groups in the time periods of the maps and idea like the UN proposed in the past could have never worked. Even just looking at Jerusalem maps now and how Israeli and Palestinian cities are built up and divided just causes conflict since you have to travel between one another in order to get to another city of their own kind.
Yardenna, I never said that you were the one who talked about the notion of Jews birthright to Israel, It was my response to some Israeli's who claimed that Jews have a birth right to return to the current OCCUPIED territory called Palestine. You also mentioned that Palestinians have as much of a birth right to return to their land as the Jews do to the land that their grandfathers cultivated. First of all I think there is a big difference about the claim to return to the Birthright land that the Israeli's have compared to the Palestinians. The land that Israeli's claim a birth right to was under the Ottomon and Roman control for centuries. None of those empires conquered the land on the premise of having a birth right, but rather as part of the expansion of their empires. The ones who came with the idea of returning back to the land to which they have the birth right were the Israelis, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians just want to return to their HOMES. If I were to claim to return to the land to which I have a birth right, then the so called "Internationl LEaders" should let me OCCUPY Iran, India, MOngolia, and Tajikistan.
Looking at the maps on the BBC website helped make sense of many of the changes the land has gone through. Reading through the book there were so many changes of power that I was getting confused as to where the land even was. It's easier to see the changes then to just read about them. As we all know there is no clear cut answer to this problem. Every person living in the United States and in the Middle East have different observations and feel differently about what should happen and what should not. I too was wondering at first why the Arabs would have rejected the UN partition plan, splitting the land into two states with Jerusalem as an international city. The plan sounds too good to be true, I will admit.
Israel DID go into the West Bank and, with military force, took all the Israeli settlers out. Israel has been cooperating to a degree with the Palestinians but that cooperation seems to have done nothing for the peace process. There will be no right and wrong, or final, ending to this crisis.
In regard to Jerusalem, it is a holy city for so many religions. "Giving" it to be governed by only one of the religions can only create problems.
I feel like everyone is so set in their ways that a solution to this problem will never come. Do we eliminate Israel and give all the land to the Palestinians or vice versa? Will the two peoples ever live peacefully together in one area?
Calling Israel a birthright for the Jews creates philosophical problems before you even get into who controlled the land at one time. You have to think about who is saying that it's their right. The Jews claim that it is their god that gave them that right. The issue then arises that the Palestinians don't recognize that because they have a different god. In the mind of a Muslim, the god of the Jews has no authority over them. It would be like saying "well Zeus said that I could have this land." Now to my knowledge, not many people are still worshipping the Greek gods, so to many people, the thought of being struck down by Zeus is silly to them. And it's sort of the same way between the Jews and the Muslims. Now despite that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all stem from the same religious ideas and arguably all have the same god, each group doesn't recognize what the other group says their god demands.
This same idea sort of extends to the recognition of the state of Israel, since the international system is really just a social construction and there are no lines painted on the ground. Just because someone else says it is so doesn't make it true in other people’s minds.
I defiantly agree w/ everything stefan wirth said... however, while its true that its a "little land" that they're irrationally killing so many lives for, however you have to keep in mind that their raging anger is that that’s all they've got to live in!! so the Palestinians cant just accept the fact that their land is being occupied and they're sitting there watching !!
i also think that NO ONE really has the right to distribute or have a say in the situation of Palestine except for the Palestinians themselves... they're the ones living the situation, they're the ones being occupied and more importantly they're the ones being directly affected ! so to think back on the movie that we watched in class today .. i think that it was pretty BIZARRE how all the countries were voting on whether the rest of the Jews should be sent to Palestine or even establish a state there ! if they wanted to be so generous why wouldn’t they have giving them a region of a land of their own? ( i.e countries who were the main root of the problem … the UK , US , France etc.. )
I think if that would have happened then there WOULD be peace in the MIDDLE EAST!!!
I found the maps to be very helpful. Its been mentioned that one of the main causes of Palestinian anger is their lack of autonomy and their being the original inhabitants of the land for the past few thousand years. Many people fail to mention that there are many groups in the region who are at odds with one another. It isnt as if everyone "got along" before the Jews were reintroduced into palestine, and it would be unfair to blame the plight of the Palestinians and the resulting crisis in the region on Israel. The Jordanians have no desire to create an autonomous palestinian state, based on their repressive actions in the past. There are many factors affecting this situation.
Post a Comment
<< Home